Dunn v. New Mex. Dep't of Game & Fish

464 P.3d 129

Aubrey L. DUNN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-37577

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: January 31, 2020

Law Office of Marshall J. Ray, LLC, Marshall J. Ray, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

Miller Stratvert P.A., Luke Salganek, Elizabeth Reitzel, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

OPINION

VANZI, Judge.

{1} The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) appeals the district court's order of summary judgment compelling NMDGF to produce the names and email addresses of individuals who applied for hunting licenses in 2015 and 2016, pursuant to Plaintiff's request under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 14-2-1 to -12 (1947, as amended through 2019).¹ NMDGF contends the requested email addresses are not "public records" because they do not "relate to public business," as defined in IPRA, § 14-2-6(G); and therefore they need not fall under any IPRA disclosure exception to justify denial of Plaintiff's request for inspection. We disagree and affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

BACKGROUND

{2} In January 2017 Plaintiff submitted an IPRA request to NMDGF, seeking the names and email addresses given by all applicants for hunting licenses in 2015 and 2016, which NMDGF determined amounted to over 300,000 entries. NMDGF concluded that Plaintiff's request sought personal identifier information that did not constitute a public record subject to disclosure and agreed to produce only the applicants’ names. Plaintiff filed suit in district court seeking an order compelling NMDGF to produce the applicants’ email addresses. The district court subsequently granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that Plaintiff's request did not fall under any disclosure exception recognized by IPRA. In addition, it held that NMDGF wrongfully withheld the email addresses pursuant to a policy decision to protect the applicants from potential harassment by anti-hunting groups, which runs contrary to IPRA and Republican Party of New Mexico v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department , 2012-NMSC-026, ¶ 16, 283 P.3d 853.

DISCUSSION

{3} On appeal, NMDGF does not oppose summary judgment on the basis of a factual dispute. The parties dispute only whether the email addresses of applicants for hunting licenses are "public records" subject to disclosure under IPRA.² This presents a question of law that requires us to construe the statute and apply the relevant case law to undisputed facts. Our review is de novo. See N.M. Found. for Open Gov't v. Corizon Health (NMFOG ), 2020-NMCA-014, ¶ 15, 460 P.3d 43 (No. A-1-CA-35951, Sept. 13, 2019) (explaining that whether documents at issue are public records presents an issue of statutory construction, a legal question we review de novo). "In discerning the Legislature's intent, we are aided by classic canons of statutory construction, and we look first to the plain language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning, unless the Legislature indicates a different one was intended." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "In so doing, we take care to avoid adopting a construction that would render the statute's application absurd or unreasonable or lead to injustice or contradiction." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "IPRA must be construed in light of its purpose and statutory provisions under IPRA should be interpreted to mean what the Legislature intended it to mean, and to accomplish the ends sought to be accomplished." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{4} The purpose of IPRA is "to ensure ... that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees." Section 14-2-5. In light of this purpose, "[e]ach inquiry starts with the presumption that public policy favors the right of inspection." Cox v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 2010-NMCA-096, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{5} IPRA defines "public records" as

all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes, photographs, recordings and other materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that are used, created, received, maintained or held by or on behalf of any public body and relate to public business , whether or not the records are required by law to be created or maintained.

Section 14-2-6(G) (emphasis added). NMDGF contends the email addresses of applicants for hunting licenses are not public records because they do not "relate to public business" as defined in Section 14-2-6(G). Noting the absence of a definition for "relate to public business" in IPRA's provisions, NMDGF relies on three main authorities for its interpretation: (1) the stated purpose of IPRA; (2) the New Mexico Inspection of Public Records Act Compliance Guide (IPRA Guide ), at 26-27 (8th ed. 2015) and (3) this Court's opinion in Cox , 2010-NMCA-096, ¶¶ 30-31, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501.

{6} NMDGF contends that the email addresses of hunters in New Mexico are not public records subject to IPRA because "[t]heir personal contact information does not provide information pertaining to either the affairs of government or the official acts of public officers and employees." In other words, the email addresses constitute personal contact information taken for administrative convenience that reveal nothing about the issuance of hunting licenses or other of NMDGF official acts, operations, or activities, and their disclosure implicates the privacy of New Mexico citizens. Plaintiff responds that NMDGF requires applicants to provide an email address as part of the administration of the program, and that those email addresses are gathered, maintained, and used by NMDGF to carry out its official licensing acts. Moreover, he argues, the email addresses relate to the public business of NMDGF because "[h]unting licenses are granted to permit members of the public to use public resources—resources that happen to be scarce, tightly regulated, and often controversial" noting, for example, that the distribution of game tags leads to questions every season raising issues of fairness and transparency. In Plaintiff's view, NMDGF asks this Court to adopt an overly restrictive definition of public records that would limit disclosure under IPRA to information that impacts a substantive decision by a public body and afford those public bodies wide discretion to deny IPRA requests.

{7} In addressing NMDGF's argument that the purpose of IPRA is not furthered by construing "public records" to require disclosure of the applicants’ email addresses, we begin by acknowledging that our cases have consistently stated, "[u]nder IPRA, public records are broadly defined." NMFOG , 2020-NMCA- 014, ¶ 17, 460 P.3d 43 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have held: "IPRA's broad language defining public records is clear that, absent an express exemption from disclosure, public agencies must produce all records, even those held by or created by a private entity ‘on behalf of’ the public agency." State ex rel. Toomey v. City of Truth or Consequences , 2012-NMCA-104, ¶ 10, 287 P.3d 364 (citing the "public records" definition of Section 14-2-6(G)); see also Edenburn v. N.M. Dep't of Health , 2013-NMCA-045, ¶ 17, 299 P.3d 424 ("IPRA provides for eight exceptions to this definition, which further refine the definition of ‘public record’ and highlight the broadness of the basic definition reflecting the general presumption in favor of public access to records.").

{8} The relevant provision of IPRA defines "public records" as all materials "used, created, received, maintained or held on or behalf of any public body and relate to public business[.]" Section 14-2-6(G). We emphasize that our case law requires us to construe the plain language in IPRA provisions and give the words their ordinary meaning to accomplish the legislative goal of public access to "public records," which we consistently view as broadly defined. See NMFOG , 2020-NMCA- 014, ¶¶ 15, 17, 460 P.3d 43 ; Edenburn , 2013-NMCA-045, ¶ 17, 299 P.3d 424 ; Cox , 2010-NMCA-096, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 934, 242 P.3d 501. Within this analytical framework, we observe that the plain language used to define "public records" in the phrase "relate to public business" is itself inexact and unamenable to a narrow construction. Giving the terms their ordinary meaning, "relate to" are expansive words that embrace a wide range of relevance and involvement.³ More importantly, the terms "public business" are similarly broad words that can embrace a wide range of affairs and actions by or on behalf of public bodies.⁴ See Pacheco v. Hudson , 2018-NMSC-022, ¶ 27, 415 P.3d 505 ("IPRA textually makes clear that it is aimed at ‘the affairs of government’ and the ‘official’ acts of public officers and employees." (quoting Section 14-2-5, stating the purpose of IPRA))). If the Legislature intended to limit the materials subject to disclosure as NMDGF suggests, then the Legislature could have qualified "public business" in a manner that used language requiring the materials to relate to a public body's substantive decisions, rather than material that is kept for purely administrative purposes. See NMFOG , 2020-NMCA- 014, ¶ 15, 460 P.3d 43 (stating that in determining legislative intent behind IPRA provisions, "we look first to the plain language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning, unless the Legislature indicates a different one was intended" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Such a narrow interpretation is belied by the expansive language, "relate to public business," the otherwise broadly worded definition of "public records," and the absence of any limiting language. See Edenburn , 2013-NMCA-045, ¶ 17, 299 P.3d 424 (holding that the Department of...